The Wrong God

[Greylorn Ell]

So is your Aeon space (or its force) linked to consciousness in your theory?

Wyman,

Yes. I see it as the space from which single potentially conscious units came into being.

The force manifested by Aeon space is that which powers the deepest level of your mind, and even of mine now and then.

Of course there is more to be added by way of explanation, like how those units realize their potential.

Greylorn

That is an interesting theory, especially as it ties to how consciousness, or life, seems (maybe) to run counter to the laws of thermodynamics. I remember a long time ago having interesting discussion with you on the topic. But you have to elaborate on your theory, as right now, in this thread, it is very ambiguous as stated so far.

Wyman,
Your reminder triggers a few neurons.

In Jan. 2017 I broke my back and spent 3 months in a rehab place, happily taking every painkiller they'd give me. Upon returning home I gave up the pills and reverted to the time-honored emotional/physical anesthetic, ethanol-- plus wintertime firewood management. Since then my mind has refocused. I gave up my lucrative business to focus upon healing others and getting back to philosophical work, no matter how unrewarding it has been and will be. This thread is part of that refocusing attempt. It will be limited, as will I.

I apologize for not recalling our previous conversations. Many neurons have disappeared from my brain since our earlier conversations. Concepts are not stored in the brain, so those remain, and have continued to develop.

This thread was an attempt to refocus and see how an attempt to present somewhat radical, but rational ideas, might fare. So far, poorly.

This winter in the mountains has been ugly, and gathering enough wood to heat my cabin to 60 deg has been no fun, so my attention to this thread has been intermittent. I'm also working on a synopsis for an essay on the subject of Natural Creation /Beon Theory, which I will be happy to send you upon completion.

BTW,so far as it has been explained on this thread, my theory is not ambiguous. It is merely incomplete. One might deduce it from existing explanations, but that seems unlikely. I seem to have a peculiar combination of physics/logic background, plus divergent asshole attitude. Would not wish the same on anyone I liked.

Your support in discouraging the trolls and sandbaggers from showing up here will be appreciated.

Greylorn



posting.php?mode=quote&f=16&p=396235&si ... 39c618c46e

[Greylorn Ell]

But I ALREADY have the answers of "Why?"

No homework needed. Only honesty, openness, and inquisitiveness was needed.

Obviously there is nothing to study for homework because you human beings are still looking for answers, and still presuming that things are hard and complex. There is absolutely NOTHING in nor about Life that is hard nor complex. Only you human beings make things seem hard and complex. That is WHY you still do NOT have the answers.

Phrases like "Only you human beings..." suggest to me that you are a complete fruitcake, maybe a 16 yo kid whose mother was stupid enough to buy it a computer before it had graduated from the comic book stage. Please have the courtesy to move your nonsense to a different thread-- of even better to a different forum. This will be my last communication to you.

Fair enough, you are FREE to ASSUME and BELIEVE whatever you want to ASSUME and BELIEVE.

Being OPEN, inquisitive, and clarifying is NOT one of adult human being's best traits.

Asshole,
Please go away. Your comments are not relevant to this thread. They are about your personal irrelevance as an intelligent human being and are limited to your personal bullshit.
GL

[Greylorn Ell]

I like talking to people, yes, discussing perspectives.

OK.

I don't want to teach anyone anything, I want them to LOOK for themselves. This is my only interest.

And yet you aren't looking by yourself or for yourself. You want to look with other people.

There are way too many teachings out there, all useless if one doesn't actually look at his/her own momentary experience and investigate it in perfect honesty with the aim of finding out what is really happening.

Naturally. Because most teachers are trying to justify their own way.

I don't think I am doing that (but maybe I am mistaken). But the first thing I ask everybody who seems to be looking: What do you want? What are you looking for and how will you tell you have found it?

Which are probably the most important questions you could ask on the journey of "Know thyself".

Logik and Akexw.

Of course I'm delighted that you two nitwits have chosen so suck one another's little peckers on this thread. You exemplify exactly what philosophy has been promoting for the last 150 years.

I'm trying to promote actual ideas. So please get your little pinheads off this thread, and use PM to ingratiate yourselves with one another.

GL

[AlexW]

I'm trying to promote actual ideas. So please get your little pinheads off this thread

If you would define your theory and not only promote yourself there would actually be something to discuss.
For now there is more complaining about people being off topic than there is actual topic.

How about you explain this theory of yours (Beon?) so people can actually discuss something that is on topic.
Let us know the main pillars of this theory, provide some clear explanations of what you actually propose instead of complaining how cold it is inside your little cabin.

[Logik]

I'm trying to promote actual ideas. So please get your little pinheads off this thread

If you would define your theory....

I don't even care about a definition.... What does it DO that existing theories don't?

Does it predict better? No? I have a trashcan full of crap ideas.

[Greylorn Ell]

I'm trying to promote actual ideas. So please get your little pinheads off this thread

If you would define your theory....

I don't even care about a definition.... What does it DO that existing theories don't?

Does it predict better? No? I have a trashcan full of crap ideas.

It resolves David Chalmer's "Hard Problem of Consciousness," explains Dark Energy, offers an explanation for the incompatibility between General Relativity and quantum mechanics, explains why the universe is digitized at Planck scales, etc. At trivial levels it explains why hypnosis works and why some individuals have experienced OOB's and why others recall previous lives. It proposes a purpose for human existence that is not shared by any religious or philosophical theories. Except for that and its complete invalidation of Darwinism, it doesn't do jack shit. You and other philosophers might as well ignore it. I apologize for seeking an audience of thoughtful and intelligent individuals on a forum for philosophy, thereby wasting your time, but it seemed worth a try.
GL

[AlexW]

It resolves David Chalmer's "Hard Problem of Consciousness,"

Ok, sounds interesting.
Can you explain how?

[Logik]

It resolves David Chalmer's "Hard Problem of Consciousness,"

Rogers's fixed point theorem does that too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Rogers's fixed-point theorem. If {\displaystyle F} F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

The fixed point (perspective?) FROM which any function F (say the wave function of a Universe?) is computable is "consciousness".

explains Dark Energy, offers an explanation for the incompatibility between General Relativity and quantum mechanics

We don't need explanations - we need unification/solutions.

explains why the universe is digitized at Planck scales,

So does this theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

etc. At trivial levels it explains why hypnosis works and why some individuals have experienced OOB's and why others recall previous lives.

Psychedelics? We don't know how the brain works - there are many ways to short-circuit it.

It proposes a purpose for human existence that is not shared by any religious or philosophical theories. Except for that and its complete invalidation of Darwinism, it doesn't do jack shit.

Invalidation OR rejection? Ergodic theory is the generalization of Darwinism.

You and other philosophers might as well ignore it. I apologize for seeking an audience of thoughtful and intelligent individuals on a forum for philosophy, thereby wasting your time, but it seemed worth a try.
GL

This thoughtful and intelligent individual things you are a quack. Because I deem myself a model-dependent realist, I have absolutely no doubt that you could start with a completely fresh set of axioms and arrive at models of reality that MIGHT even work in exactly the same way as the ones we have now.

And if you DO do that - well done. You have re-synthesized knowledge from first principles. You have re-invented the wheel!

Me - I am perfectly happy to work within the existing system of knowledge and expand on it as we go along.
It is very rare to see this tendency of "Throw it all in the trashcan and lets start afresh" from somebody your age.

For any new theory to be useful it needs to do EVERYTHING that the old theory did and more!
Yours doesn't - it explains. It does not predict.

[Greylorn Ell]

It resolves David Chalmer's "Hard Problem of Consciousness,"

Rogers's fixed point theorem does that too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Rogers's fixed-point theorem. If {\displaystyle F} F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

The fixed point (perspective?) FROM which any function F (say the wave function of a Universe?) is computable is "consciousness".

explains Dark Energy, offers an explanation for the incompatibility between General Relativity and quantum mechanics

We don't need explanations - we need unification/solutions.

explains why the universe is digitized at Planck scales,

So does this theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

etc. At trivial levels it explains why hypnosis works and why some individuals have experienced OOB's and why others recall previous lives.

Psychedelics? We don't know how the brain works - there are many ways to short-circuit it.

It proposes a purpose for human existence that is not shared by any religious or philosophical theories. Except for that and its complete invalidation of Darwinism, it doesn't do jack shit.

Invalidation OR rejection? Ergodic theory is the generalization of Darwinism.

You and other philosophers might as well ignore it. I apologize for seeking an audience of thoughtful and intelligent individuals on a forum for philosophy, thereby wasting your time, but it seemed worth a try.
GL

This thoughtful and intelligent individual things you are a quack. Because I deem myself a model-dependent realist, I have absolutely no doubt that you could start with a completely fresh set of axioms and arrive at models of reality that MIGHT even work in exactly the same way as the ones we have now.

And if you DO do that - well done. You have re-synthesized knowledge from first principles. You have re-invented the wheel!

Me - I am perfectly happy to work within the existing system of knowledge and expand on it as we go along.
It is very rare to see this tendency of "Throw it all in the trashcan and lets start afresh" from somebody your age.

For any new theory to be useful it needs to do EVERYTHING that the old theory did and more!
Yours doesn't - it explains. It does not predict.

Logik,
You are sandbagging this thread by introducing pseudo-mathematical nonsense that no readers on this forum will make sense of, you will not personally eludidate (i.e. explain them and their relevance on this thread), and which I see no point in exploring until their relevance becomes evident.

I request that you stop posting to this thread, and to any threads I may initiate in the future, on the grounds that your comments are not pertinent to the conversation I've initiated.

If you dislike my conversation, fine. Initiate your own. But please stay away from mine.
Thank you.
GL

[Age]

Phrases like "Only you human beings..." suggest to me that you are a complete fruitcake, maybe a 16 yo kid whose mother was stupid enough to buy it a computer before it had graduated from the comic book stage. Please have the courtesy to move your nonsense to a different thread-- of even better to a different forum. This will be my last communication to you.

Fair enough, you are FREE to ASSUME and BELIEVE whatever you want to ASSUME and BELIEVE.

Being OPEN, inquisitive, and clarifying is NOT one of adult human being's best traits.

Asshole,
Please go away. Your comments are not relevant to this thread. They are about your personal irrelevance as an intelligent human being and are limited to your personal bullshit.
GL

My comments are relevant to this thread. IF you are going to start a thread with; Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things-, then, as my earliest comments suggested, 'you have to PROVE that there was an actual beginning of things FIRST'. If, however, you consider this irrelevant, than that is solely YOUR choice. But some others might also be interested in what actual evidence do you have that there was an actual "beginning of things"?

To ASSUME that there was even a beginning is a complete distortion of the Truth of things.

[Logik]

Logik,
You are sandbagging this thread by introducing pseudo-mathematical nonsense that no readers on this forum will make sense of, you will not personally eludidate (i.e. explain them and their relevance on this thread), and which I see no point in exploring until their relevance becomes evident.

I request that you stop posting to this thread, and to any threads I may initiate in the future, on the grounds that your comments are not pertinent to the conversation I've initiated.

If you dislike my conversation, fine. Initiate your own. But please stay away from mine.
Thank you.
GL

So on one hand you say you are here to discuss new ideas on the other hand you dismiss my feedback as "irrelevant"? OK.

I would elucidate why my feedback is on-point and why it makes sense from my perspective (which is vastly more informed than yours it seems) but then we wouldn't be discussing "new ideas" - I would be explaining to you why you are mistaken. I would be teaching you.

But since we are in kindergarten let me spell it out for you in the simplest of language: You can't tell the difference between "new ideas" and "valuable new ideas".

And since it is pertinently obvious that you are not willing to discuss valuable new ideas - I am perfectly happy to stay out of your discussions.

[Greylorn Ell]

Fair enough, you are FREE to ASSUME and BELIEVE whatever you want to ASSUME and BELIEVE.

Being OPEN, inquisitive, and clarifying is NOT one of adult human being's best traits.

Asshole,
Please go away. Your comments are not relevant to this thread. They are about your personal irrelevance as an intelligent human being and are limited to your personal bullshit.
GL

My comments are relevant to this thread. IF you are going to start a thread with; Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things-, then, as my earliest comments suggested, 'you have to PROVE that there was an actual beginning of things FIRST'. If, however, you consider this irrelevant, than that is solely YOUR choice. But some others might also be interested in what actual evidence do you have that there was an actual "beginning of things"?

To ASSUME that there was even a beginning is a complete distortion of the Truth of things.

Here's what I'll do to help you out. I refuse to offer any proof that anything whatsoever had a beginning. It is merely a belief of mine.

Years ago when I was about three years old I had to visit the family outhouse on a cold northern winter night, as I'd done countless times before. While pooping and shivering but grateful that because of the cold no spiders would be lurking downside of the hole, a bright green light from above shone through the building's cracks and the little half-moon cut into the door. It stayed there while I finished up with the help of an old Sears & Roebuck catalog. When I pulled up my pajama bottoms and opened the door-- fearful about whatever was going on outside-- a large beaver with fluorescent cerise fur was standing there on its hind legs with a rectangular tablet formed from solid ice in its paws. It addressed me by name and said, "Everything in existence, including things as yet undiscovered, including God himself, had a beginning."

I stood there with my mouth open, dumbfounded. I'd stopped shivering because the beaver radiated a halo of gentle warmth. Then it pointed to the ice tablet and said, "You don't have to believe me. It is written right here," whereupon he handed me the tablet. Then he was surrounded by a beam of light from above which carried him upward as high as the town water tower across the street, into an opening at the base of a spherical craft of some sort.

The cold had returned so I quickly returned to our house, leaving the ice tablet on the porch where it would not melt. Next morning I asked my mother to come out and read whatever had been inscribed thereon, whereupon she read the same words that the beaver had spoken. However she did not believe my explanation. Not to waste good hard ice, the tablet went into the icebox atop its block of ice, where of course it eventually melted, along with my proof. Mother passed away years ago and cannot testify.

In the absence of proof for my belief in the beginnings of things, you should write off this entire thread as totally irrelevant to you. There's no point in your ever reading any part of it again, and if you ever reply to any comment I've made or might make in the future, you will be establishing yourself as a truculent, not too bright but decidedly persistent sandbagger with no purpose here other than to interfere with a conversation that you do not care about.

GL

[Age]

Asshole,
Please go away. Your comments are not relevant to this thread. They are about your personal irrelevance as an intelligent human being and are limited to your personal bullshit.
GL

My comments are relevant to this thread. IF you are going to start a thread with; Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things-, then, as my earliest comments suggested, 'you have to PROVE that there was an actual beginning of things FIRST'. If, however, you consider this irrelevant, than that is solely YOUR choice. But some others might also be interested in what actual evidence do you have that there was an actual "beginning of things"?

To ASSUME that there was even a beginning is a complete distortion of the Truth of things.

Here's what I'll do to help you out. I refuse to offer any proof that anything whatsoever had a beginning. It is merely a belief of mine.

Years ago when I was about three years old I had to visit the family outhouse on a cold northern winter night, as I'd done countless times before. While pooping and shivering but grateful that because of the cold no spiders would be lurking downside of the hole, a bright green light from above shone through the building's cracks and the little half-moon cut into the door. It stayed there while I finished up with the help of an old Sears & Roebuck catalog. When I pulled up my pajama bottoms and opened the door-- fearful about whatever was going on outside-- a large beaver with fluorescent cerise fur was standing there on its hind legs with a rectangular tablet formed from solid ice in its paws. It addressed me by name and said, "Everything in existence, including things as yet undiscovered, including God himself, had a beginning."

I stood there with my mouth open, dumbfounded. I'd stopped shivering because the beaver radiated a halo of gentle warmth. Then it pointed to the ice tablet and said, "You don't have to believe me. It is written right here," whereupon he handed me the tablet. Then he was surrounded by a beam of light from above which carried him upward as high as the town water tower across the street, into an opening at the base of a spherical craft of some sort.

The cold had returned so I quickly returned to our house, leaving the ice tablet on the porch where it would not melt. Next morning I asked my mother to come out and read whatever had been inscribed thereon, whereupon she read the same words that the beaver had spoken. However she did not believe my explanation. Not to waste good hard ice, the tablet went into the icebox atop its block of ice, where of course it eventually melted, along with my proof. Mother passed away years ago and cannot testify.

In the absence of proof for my belief in the beginnings of things, you should write off this entire thread as totally irrelevant to you. There's no point in your ever reading any part of it again, and if you ever reply to any comment I've made or might make in the future, you will be establishing yourself as a truculent, not too bright but decidedly persistent sandbagger with no purpose here other than to interfere with a conversation that you do not care about.

GL

But I do care. If you, or any one else, are going to propose some thing as though it is factually True, then I am going to ask for proof. If you can NOT provide any proof, then I will be left in doubt. See, unlike you who reads or hears the words, In the beginning, I do NOT automatically accept that there was a beginning. Without any evidence WHY would I be stupid enough to just accept that it is thee Truth.

I KNOW you human beings like to BELIEVE what you are told when you children and grow up holding onto your BELIEFS as dearly and as strongly as you can, but unfortunately that is the very reason WHY you human beings are still looking for answers as well as guessing what the answers, just like what you are doing here.

Unfortunately you theologians AND scientists alike read the SAME book or heard the SAME words In the beginning, when you were children, or older, and even more unfortunate now is you ALL BELIEVE that which is obviously NOT true.

[attofishpi]

I KNOW you human beings like to BELIEVE..

Hey, mon.KEY, climb down from your ivory tower.

[Age]

I KNOW you human beings like to BELIEVE..

Hey, mon.KEY, climb down from your ivory tower.

I only speak like this sometimes in the hope that it might encourage being questioned and challenged. I do not know what else to try to.

If one was to speak like that, then surely they MUST be able to back up what that way of speaking infers.

Anyone curious enough to see if they could challenge it, through questioning and/or proving otherwise?